Jason Blair and Walter Duranty stand as just two of the icons which make the point intellectually irrefutable.

But then, people who have bought onto the notion that the NYT is some repository of truth rather than a fishwrap established to sell advertizing are generally not going to be capable of an intellectual debate on the topic - especially when the other side has more and bigger ammunition.

Jason Blair and Walter Duranty stand as just two of the icons which make the point intellectually irrefutable.

But then, people who have bought onto the notion that the NYT is some repository of truth rather than a fishwrap established to sell advertizing are generally not going to be capable of an intellectual debate on the topic - especially when the other side has more and bigger ammunition.

All news outlets are going to have problems if you look over a sufficiently long enough time span. Jason Blair was fired 9 years ago. Walter Duranty died 55 years ago. That you have to cast such a wide net shows that the point is quite refuatable.

Jason Blair and Walter Duranty stand as just two of the icons which make the point intellectually irrefutable.

But then, people who have bought onto the notion that the NYT is some repository of truth rather than a fishwrap established to sell advertizing are generally not going to be capable of an intellectual debate on the topic - especially when the other side has more and bigger ammunition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

All news outlets are going to have problems if you look over a sufficiently long enough time span. Jason Blair was fired 9 years ago. Walter Duranty died 55 years ago. That you have to cast such a wide net shows that the point is quite refuatable.

We would all be better off if the words "should" and "shouldn't" were removed from our vocabulary.

Also all sentences that say, "There are two kinds of people - those who xxx, and those who don't," except for the one that says, "There are two kinds of people, those who divide people into two kinds, and those who don't."

Also all sentences that say, "There are two kinds of people - those who xxx, and those who don't," except for the one that says, "There are two kinds of people, those who divide people into two kinds, and those who don't."

My personal favorite is:
"There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary numbers, and those who don't."

He's in the minority. All of society nowadays thinks it's a good idea to live on a teen life for up to old ages, like Jagger and company. That obviously asks for low standards and devouring as much junk as possible before your artery blows.

The mere fact that people prattle about the "corporate" New York Times (as if all major newspapers weren't corporate) while giving the New York Post a free pass suggests a deeper bias that is political in nature. Defaming liberals (such as those presumed to run the NYT) has its source in the conspiracy theories of the John Birch Society. The whole intimation that the NYT has a higher place in the corporate echelon than, say, ABC or Clear Channel derives its cold-war resonance from the Birch Society's insane idea that Jewish liberals control the world.

The NYT is just another newspaper. The main difference is that it publishes a disproportionate number of acclaimed and talented writers, particularly in The New York Times Book Review. Practically every review of a competent novelist in the NYTBR is written by another competent novelist. That beats the dungarees off the usual review for The North Grundy Sun by some clueless opiner who knows how to grind old axes but not how to offer new insights.

Like every other national paper, this one has a corporate agenda which involves lying on a regular basis. Many of the people who write for it might be liberal, but the people who own it are not. Like other corporate owners, they make their agenda known. Which is why no one who wants to understand world events relies on this or any other standard U.S. paper to tell them the whole story.

You have to wonder why our friends are so invested in trashing the NYT. They never go after the New York Post, which has far worse writers, is ten times more evil in the corporate sense and has a noticeably more arrogant attitude about New York's place in the world. They never talk about the corporate stranglehold of Clear Channel, the owners of which do lobby for their own politicians, do stage astroturfed counter-demonstrations against spontaneous ones, and are those zealous John Birch Society members, the Koch Brothers, who effected a massive countrywide takeover of local radio to further an anti-environmental agenda to do away with whatever laws cost them money and don't allow them to drill where they please.

Nor do you ever hear the people who hate the NYT trashing their own states' corporate-manipulated newspapers, which are usually at least as bad. If these people were really interested in escaping corporate domination, they'd be getting their news about this country from sources outside it, where journalists and media owners don't have quite as much of a vested interest in making one side or the other of a U.S-specific issue look good.

They'd be too busy lamenting the decline of less screamingly biased news to care about the NYT in particular. They'd be telling you how vile most news sources were instead of asserting that the truly awful reporting comes from arrogant and pushy New Yorkers who are also elitists and keep trying to control the world (now what ethnic group does it sound like our friends are maligning)?

As to assertions that The New York Times is only popular in New York and doesn't publish important writers:

Quote:

The New York Times has won 108 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any news organization. Its website is the most popular American online newspaper website, receiving more than 30 million unique visitors per month.

Besides which, if you're going to hate the corporate slant which is supposedly unique to the NYT but which cracks the whip in every other American mainstream news source you're likely to prefer, then you'd better hate the other 18 papers owned by the Ochs-Sulzberger dynasty, which include the Florence Times Daily in Alabama, the International Herald Tribune in France, and The Boston Globe, the West Boylston Banner and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette in guess where. While you're at it, you'd better hate About, Inc., the Boston Red Sox and the New England Sports Network, all of which are owned by the very same people.

No, the NYT isn't the most accurate publication, but neither are most of the rest, and notice that no one has said a word about them.

Just admit it: You hate this paper not because it's more biased than the others but because you're more biased about it than you are the others.

The mere fact that people prattle about the "corporate" New York Times (as if all major newspapers weren't corporate) while giving the New York Post a free pass suggests a deeper bias that is political in nature.

Maybe, but your own back and forth, pro-NY Times/anti-NY Times post, shows that this isn't left/right political in nature, as both sides attack the Times:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Like every other national paper, this one has a corporate agenda which involves lying on a regular basis.

There is only one other US general interest news gathering* national newspaper, the Washington Post. and the Post faces the same sorts of politicized attacks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Which is why no one who wants to understand world events relies on this or any other standard U.S. paper to tell them the whole story.

That's where serious non-fiction current affairs books, most of them published by the equally reviled big six publishers, come into play.

_______________________
* I don't mention USA Today here because it is primarily an aggregator of news gathered by others.

So why did the NYT put up *apparently* serious rebuttals?
To further the gag?
Either way, it's not funny.

Well, I didn't say he was funny, which he is only sometimes. God knows, most of my humor is about as funny as the proverbial head-hole but it doesn't mean that I'm trying to be superior or nasty.

I have the opposite problem with YA, I'm deeply ashamed that I've never read the Harry Potter series. Something I hope to amend some day. But I'm not going to let Mr. Stein get under my skin with his opinion of YA, especially when I know he's poking fun.

Well, I didn't say he was funny, which he is only sometimes. God knows, most of my humor is about as funny as the proverbial head-hole but it doesn't mean that I'm trying to be superior or nasty.

Do note the thread title.
Ponder why the NYT cares enough to make a debate of it in the first place.

As I said, I think they're pushing the "high culture" button with their target audience. (The old sneering at the genres. They just chose YA instead of SF or romance.) There's money to be made from making their people feel superior to the "masses".

As for Harry Potter, the books are well written and enjoyable. And they get progressively more sophisticated and mature as the series moves on, *by design*. The original intent being to map each book's accessibility level to Harry's age. The last two volumes are thoroughly adult-grade fantasy by any yardstick.
In this case, accessibility is a floor, not a ceiling: a ten year old can read the first volume but adults will find plenty of nuances to enjoy beyond a "merely" fun story. There are dickensian touches, finely honed prose, and above all an engaging well-conceived milieau. Nothing simplistic or watered down in any of them.

Hunger Games is a different creature but of comparable worth. The movie is a fair translation of the first book but it unavoidably glosses over a lot of the darker details of the novel. The trilogy is very dark, dystopic, and dead serious commentary on human nature under stress. Very apropos for the stressful times.
That teenagers willingly seek out such a story and appreciate it is a welcome sign of hope that the younger generation will turn out fine. It is an affordable series; all three volumes cost less than a typical brainless celebrity "bestseller".